This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

two former Justice Department lawyers have weighed in with a bipartisan verdict: Cruz, they say, is eligible to run for the White House.Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration, got out in front of the issue in a Harvard Law Review article. “There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution,” they wrote."

So....a couple of former gov't hacks have opined that Cruz is eligible?
This is very nice, but meaningless.
Until the top-notch birthers weigh in, Cruz' eligibility will remain a raging controversy.
I haven't heard from Orly Taitz, WND's Dr. Jerome Corsi or Sheriif Joe Arpaio as of yet.
Until these stellar legal minds give Cruz the OK, I'm not convinced.
In addition, Donald Trump's crack team of investigators may uncover some serious doubts about Cruz' alleged citizenship.

Re: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

Originally Posted by Excon

No they are not. They are not natural born Citizens.

Well....since they are currently citizens....and weren't required to go through the "naturalization process" to become citizens, I'm guessing they are "natural born citizens".
What is your definition of a "natural born citizen"?

Re: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

Originally Posted by Excon

No they are not. They are not natural born Citizens.

{shrug} I'll leave it to the lawyers. As a progressive, I have lots of reasons not to vote for Cruz. If the same conservatives that complained about Pres. Obama want to complain about Cruz, that's up to them. As far as I'm concerned, as someone who was born to a US citizen, he is eligible to run for president.

Re: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

If you're referring to Sen. McCain, Panama (Canal Zone which was not a U.S. territory despite the fact that McCain was born on a U.S. military installation).

I forget exactly how McCain's "natural-born" citizenship dilemma was ultimately resolved, but Cruz' may have been resolved by the fact that he:

1) renounced his Canadian citizenship; and,

2) his mother was a U.S. citizen at birth.

The verdict may still be out. In any case, I go back to a few old questions I once asked when this natural-born -vs- citizen issue first came up w/Pres. Obama:

If there is a difference between a U.S. citizen and a natural-born U.S. citizen, what benefits are conferred one over the other?

Is the only difference that being a natural-born citizen can hold the office of PUTUS and a citizen cannot?

And seeing that the term "natural-born" was only once a settled matter in a 1790 law that has long been repealed and replaced by other versions of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization law, does "natural-born" even still apply today?

And if not, should Art. 2 of the U.S. Constitution be amended?

I had a feeling you might try the "who" angle.
Of course I was referring to Cruz.
I asked to make the point that he wasn't born on US soil.

McCain's dilemma was not resolved as the person suing had no standing. And the lawsuit showed he was born in a civilian hospital. Not a Military hospital.
But like I said that matters not one bit as a law was passed which shows he was not even a citizen until passage. So he is a Citizen by statute. Not naturally born.

Your #1 is irrelevant. He was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen at birth and owed allegiance to Canada at birth. That is not a natural born citizen of the US.

The 1790 language was changed for a reason, and it hasn't been in effect since it was superseded 5 years later. As such the 1790 legislation is irrelevant as it was replaced and they were not born under it.

Your questions?
Who did you ask this question of, and what was the answer?

The answers should be an obvious "of course" as they are different distinctions. The founders intentionally made the distinction for a purpose.
Obviously they knew what that distinction was.
And that is more than evident from Vattel’s Law of Nations which our founders relied on, that those born of Citizens on a Country's soil makes one a natural born citizen.
Which is further enforced by the letter to Washington from John Jay suggesting that the distinction be made for the Commander in Chief, as the natural state of being a natural born citizen does not come with allegiances to a foreign country.

Re: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

Originally Posted by Excon

I had a feeling you might try the "who" angle.
Of course I was referring to Cruz.
I asked to make the point that he wasn't born on US soil.

McCain's dilemma was not resolved as the person suing had no standing. And the lawsuit showed he was born in a civilian hospital. Not a Military hospital.
But like I said that matters not one bit as a law was passed which shows he was not even a citizen until passage. So he is a Citizen by statute. Not naturally born.

Your #1 is irrelevant. He was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen at birth and owed allegiance to Canada at birth. That is not a natural born citizen of the US.

The 1790 language was changed for a reason, and it hasn't been in effect since it was superseded 5 years later. As such the 1790 legislation is irrelevant as it was replaced and they were not born under it.

Your questions?
Who did you ask this question of, and what was the answer?

The answers should be an obvious "of course" as they are different distinctions. The founders intentionally made the distinction for a purpose.
Obviously they knew what that distinction was.
And that is more than evident from Vattel’s Law of Nations which our founders relied on, that those born of Citizens on a Country's soil makes one a natural born citizen.
Which is further enforced by the letter to Washington from John Jay suggesting that the distinction be made for the Commander in Chief, as the natural state of being a natural born citizen does not come with allegiances to a foreign country.

Sounds as if you got alittle huffy with me. No need; I see this situation in much the same way as yourself. However, I would content that until the "natural-born citizen" equation truly becomes settled law, the need for people to jump through legal hoops will continue.

You've pointed out one obvious constant - that the citizenship equation has continued to change over time. However, one thing I believe Congress has tried to hold true to is the distinct prerequisite the the POTUS must be a "natural-born citizen," someone born to the soil of the United States of America to become President. Hence, the reason I asked my questions (to the forum) years ago (you may have to search the forum archives for it), specifically, is there a difference between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen" of these United States.

The answer clearly is a resounding yes, but determining who such individuals are can be somewhat convoluted as the questions surrounding Obama/McCain/Cruz natural-born/citizen birth rights have clearly illustrated.

Re: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

Originally Posted by EnigmaO01

So what is he then?

If you judge him simply by the color of his skin, then Dr. King's words are lost on you.
To know what he is you would have to look at his life. Grew up with well off white grandparents who paid for him to attend a lily white private school. Never suffered or went without anything he wanted. Had everything handed to him on a silver platter. Like a Nobel peace prize. Descended from slave traders and slave owners, but not slaves. Which make his "we are the slaves that built the white house" comment even more laughable. He'll exploit anyone that is willing to follow him due to the fact that he kind of looks like them.
So, by what standard does one judge him as being "black"? It's certainly not the content of his character.
If it weren't for the amount of melanin in his skin and the letter after his name, many on the left would brand him a privileged white boy.

Re: Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

Sounds as if you got alittle huffy with me. No need; I see this situation in much the same way as yourself. However, I would content that until the "natural-born citizen" equation truly becomes settled law, the need for people to jump through legal hoops will continue. You've pointed out one obvious constant - that the citizenship equation has continued to change over time. However, one thing I believe Congress has tried to hold true to is the distinct prerequisite the the POTUS must be a "natural-born citizen," someone born to the soil of the United States of America to become President. Hence, the reason I asked my questions (to the forum) years ago (you may have to search the forum archives for it), specifically, is there a difference between a "natural-born citizen" and a "citizen" of these United States.

The answer clearly is a resounding yes, but determining who such individuals are can be somewhat convoluted as the questions surrounding Obama/McCain/Cruz natural-born/citizen birth rights have clearly illustrated.

(BTW, I don't recall every getting a straight answer to my question(s).)

Huffy? That would be a product of your own thoughts.
But I do see you are continuing to misstate the positions. And no, it hasn't continued to change over time. It has always meant the same thing. It was wrongly changed one time and later corrected.
Congress really hasn't done anything either. And the requirement does not just have to do with the soil. So there is no holding true to the requirement if it is not being followed.

The distinction is pretty clear as to who is and isn't.
The only problem is those who want to support their candidate, party, and their ill-informed opinion arguing the opposite.

Your postings?
I do not need to search the forum for your posts if you can not be bothered to provide them.

The only thing we seem to agree with is what I originally stated.
The Supreme Court has not settled this issue.